A novel Phase II single-arm hybrid design to minimize trial duration and enhance subsequent Phase III trial success rate

Reference

• E.A. Gehan, The determination of the number of patients required in a preliminary and a follow-up trial of a new chemotherapeutic agent. J. Chronic. Dis. 13(4) (1961), pp. 346–353.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• T.R. Fleming, One-sample multiple testing procedure for phase II clinical trials. Biometrics 38(1) (1982), pp. 143–151.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• M.N. Chang, et al., Designs for group sequential phase II clinical trials. Biometrics 43(4) (1987), pp. 865–874.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• R. Simon, Optimal two-stage designs for phase II clinical trials. Control. Clin. Trials 10(1) (1989), pp. 1–10.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• J. Bryant, and R. Day, Incorporating toxicity considerations into the design of two-stage phase II clinical trials. Biometrics 51(4) (1995), pp. 1372–1383.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• M. Kwak, and S.H. Jung, Phase II clinical trials with time-to-event endpoints: Optimal two-stage designs with one-sample log-rank test. Stat. Med. 33(12) (2014), pp. 2004–2016.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• M.W. Sill, et al., A method for utilizing co-primary efficacy outcome measures to screen regimens for activity in two-stage phase II clinical trials. Clinical Trials 9(4) (2012), pp. 385–395.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• S. Pretorius, Phase III trial failures: Costly, but preventable. Appl. Clin. Trials. 25(8/9) (2016), pp. 36.
   Google Scholar
• R.K. Harrison, Phase II and phase III failures: 2013-2015. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 15(12) (2016), pp. 817–818.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• P.T. Lavin, An alternative model for the evaluation of antitumor activity. Cancer. Clin. Trials. 4(4) (1981), pp. 451–457.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• R. Bruno, and L. Claret, On the use of change in tumor size to predict survival in clinical oncology studies: Toward a new paradigm to design and evaluate phase II studies. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 86(2) (2009), pp. 136–138.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• L. Claret, et al., Model-based prediction of phase III overall survival in colorectal cancer on the basis of phase II tumor dynamics. J. Clin. Oncol. 27(25) (2009), pp. 4103–4108.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R.K. Jain, et al., Change in tumor size by RECIST correlates linearly with overall survival in phase I oncology studies. J. Clin. Oncol. 30(21) (2012), pp. 2684.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• T. Burzykowski, et al., Evaluation of tumor response, disease control, progression-free survival, and time to progression as potential surrogate end points in metastatic breast cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 26(12) (2008), pp. 1987–1992.
   Google Scholar
• M. Buyse, et al., Relation between tumour response to first-line chemotherapy and survival in advanced colorectal cancer: A meta-analysis. Lancet 356(9227) (2000), pp. 373–378.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• S. Gavrilov, et al., Longitudinal tumor size and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio are prognostic biomarkers for overall survival in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer treated with durvalumab. CPT: Pharmacomet. Syst. Pharmacol. 10(1) (2021), pp. 67–74.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• M. Nishino, et al., Automated image analysis tool for tumor volume growth rate to guide precision cancer therapy: EGFR-mutant non-small-cell lung cancer as a paradigm. Eur. J. Radiol. 109 (2018), pp. 68–76.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• L.N. He, et al., Pre-treatment tumor growth rate predicts clinical outcomes of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer undergoing anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy. Front. Oncol. 10 (2020), pp. 621329.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• T.G. Karrison, et al., Design of phase II cancer trials using a continuous endpoint of change in tumor size: Application to a study of sorafenib and erlotinib in non–small-cell lung cancer. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 99(19) (2007), pp. 1455–1461.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• F. Schabel Jr, et al., Quantitative evaluation of anticancer agent activity in experimental animals. Pharmacol. Therap. Part A: Chemother. Toxicol. Metabol. Inhib. 1(4) (1977), pp. 411–435.
   Google Scholar
• K.J. Carroll, On the use and utility of the Weibull model in the analysis of survival data. Control. Clin. Trials 24(6) (2003), pp. 682–701.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• J. Wu, Sample size calculation for the one-sample log-rank test. Pharm. Stat. 14(1) (2015), pp. 26–33.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• L. Kerschke, A. Faldum, and R. Schmidt, An improved one-sample log-rank test. Stat. Methods Med. Res. 29(10) (2020), pp. 2814–2829.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• W.S. Theelen, et al., Effect of pembrolizumab after stereotactic body radiotherapy vs pembrolizumab alone on tumor response in patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer: Results of the PEMBRO-RT phase 2 randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 5(9) (2019), pp. 1276–1282.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• X. Weng, et al., Cost–utility analysis of pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy as first-line treatment for metastatic non-small cell lung cancer with different PD-L1 expression levels. Oncol. Res. 28(2) (2020), pp. 117.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• M.P. Ebert, et al., Second-line therapy with nivolumab plus ipilimumab for older patients with oesophageal squamous cell cancer (RAMONA): A multicentre, open-label phase 2 trial. Lancet Healthy Longevity 3(6) (2022), pp. e417–e427.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• S. Park, et al., Durvalumab and tremelimumab with definitive chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Cancer 128(11) (2022), pp. 2148–2158.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• M. Ghadessi, et al., A roadmap to using historical controls in clinical trials – by drug information association adaptive design scientific working group (DIA-ADSWG). Orphanet J. Rare Dis. 15(1) (2020), pp. 1–19.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• B. Han, et al., Covariate-adjusted borrowing of historical control data in randomized clinical trials. Pharm. Stat. 16(4) (2017), pp. 296–308.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• S. Roychoudhury, and B. Neuenschwander, Bayesian leveraging of historical control data for a clinical trial with time-to-event endpoint. Stat. Med. 39(7) (2020), pp. 984–995.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• J.A. DiMasi, R.W. Hansen, and H.G. Grabowski, The price of innovation: New estimates of drug development costs. J. Health Econ. 22(2) (2003), pp. 151–185.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• M.-W. An, et al., Comparison of continuous versus categorical tumor measurement–based metrics to predict overall survival in cancer treatment trials continuous and categorical response measures in cancer trials. Clin. Cancer Res. 17(20) (2011), pp. 6592–6599.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar